The Hawaiian gazette., 1887-08-16
SUPREME COURT,
: rrnN-Irpar rngsrox. rREsInINa.
GRAcE Dom vs.. JAMES Dom.

snd is as follows;
This is libel for divorce from the
bonds of matrimony and was heard
before me on the 18th and SOth days
Of July last,
The parties were married on the
Sth of December, 1878, and cohabited
together at various places in Homo
lulu,
The respondent. except for the
period between July and December,
1886, kept liquor saloon and livery
stables in Honolulu.
The hbellant charges the respond
ent with being sn habitual drunkard,
with the exception of one year, dur
ing the whole period of their married
life and with having treated her with
extreme cruelty,
These allegations are denied by the
respondent. and as is usual in cases of
this nature the evidence is conuadic-
tory. and as respects that given by
the parties themselves shows great
personal feeling.
From the testimony of the hbellant
and her witnesses, it would appear
that from 8 time very shortly after
the marriage, until the filing of the
libel and excepting period of one
year during which time the respond
ent abstained from liquor except
claret, the respondent was more or
less under the influence of liquor, and
on frequent occasions was so drunk
IS TO be incapable of taking care of
himself. and conducting himself in
such & manner as must have made
hbellant's life intolerable, and that
while so under the influence Of liquor
he frequently beat, kicked. and other
wise III treated the ibellant in such
manner as 10 amount TO extreme
cruelty.
The cause for the i'll treatment is
alleged to be the refusal by the libel
liant 10 make over TO the respondent
property held in trust for her.
From the testimony of the respond
ent and MS witnesses 1t would appear
that the statements OF hbellant as to
the drunkenness OF the respondent
are untrue and that no assault upon
the Ebellant had been committed by
the respondent.
The Court has TO judge between
these statements and if they cannot
be reconciled. must give its decision
according to what it considers the
preponderance of the testimony.
In arriving at q conclusion, l must
first consider the testimony on the
part Of the hbellant. and having done
50. l find 1t amply sufficient to sup
port her case
Now. how far Is it substantially
eontradicted by the defense? The
effect Of the testimony Is that al
though the respondent vas IN the
constant habit Of drinking yet he sell
dom II al al was 80 under the n
-Huence of liquor as TO be unable 70
attend ID his business or 10 be con
sidered IN hsbitual drunkard-
Our statute preseTIbes habituaI in
temperance Is q ground for divorce.
but II fails TO define the term, and It
probably does not admit OF precise
definition lBlaney vs. Blaney, 126
Mass. 2l5l.
i person may be Iaboring under
great excitement and others may
think he Is under the influence OF
EQ4or. and on the other hand &
person may be intoxicated and may
not himself think so.
The respondent swears: = In July,
1883. l went 10 California, and was
gone three months Up TO October,
1854. l might have been drunk twice
not more. used liquor at times.
b. drink 1so7s 20 si1k 1 had 20 call q
Gg507"
Mr.. ". S. Luce testified that he
had known the respondent for seven
teen years. had seen him three Or
four times e Eeek-had seen him
night q good many times Would
run several months, then go on spr9
several days; then go on the dry
dock he got drunk l should say three
or four times year Have re1nOn
strstsd with him about drinking
When l saw him starting tired 10 stop
him Have rarely succeeded His
DRINKS lasted two OF three days; then
stop awhile; then start again
Ii appears also from the testimony
that the respondent and witnesses
Shaw and Miller deposited one hun
dred dollars each, the whole 70 b.
eone the property Of the one who
should abstain from liquor for one
ysar. The respondent got the money,
IL having confined his drinking 10
clares and soda f0E that time.
On another occasion the same par
5les deposited fifty dollars each On
similar terms but limited TO SIX
months The respondent abstained
f0r four months only and consequent
IL lost MS fifty dollars
1t consequently appea1s 10 ne that
the testimony for the respondent does
nj reb1t that for the lbelIsnt. and 1
therefore ind that ths respondent L
guilty q habit1sl intempeTsnce with
II ths meaning q the law
With respect 10 the charge Of eI-
Z